Should humans keep other animals in cages, eradicate them for human development, or move them from one habitat to another? Human relationships with nature raise numerous complex issues. Often people wonder why those who they perceive to be concerned with the psychological and physical health of animals can't agree on solutions to existing problems. They believe that advocates of animal welfare and animal rights will favor the same solutions. Often this isn't so. A consideration of some recent local issues the Estes Park Zoo, reintroduction of lynx, eradication of prairie dogs, dog labs at CU's medical school and the high death rate at Ocean Journey highlights the differences between these views. People who believe that it's permissible to cause animals pain, but not unnecessary pain, argue that if we consider the animals' welfare or well-being their quality of life that's all we need to do. These people are called "welfarists" and they practice "welfarism."

Welfarists believe that while humans should not wantonly exploit animals, as long as we make animals' lives comfortable, physically and psychologically, we're respecting their welfare. If animals experience comfort and some of life's pleasures, appear happy, and are free from prolonged or intense pain, fear, hunger and other unpleasant states, they're doing fine. If individuals show normal growth and reproduction, and are free from disease, injury, malnutrition and other types of suffering, they're doing well and we're fulfilling our obligations to them.

Welfarists also assume that it's alright to use animals to meet human ends as long as certain safeguards are used. They believe keeping animals in zoos and aquariums where there are high death rates (about 20 percent at Denver's Ocean Journey, the "industry standard"), using animals in experiments and slaughtering animals for human consumption are permissible as long as these activities are conducted in a humane way. But welfarists don't believe that animals' lives have inherent value. Animals' lives are valuable merely because of their utility or use-value to humans.

Basically, welfarists are utilitarians who believe that dogs, cats, prairie dogs, or any other animals can be exploited as long as the pain and suffering that the animals experience the costs of using the animals to the animals are less than the benefits to humans that are gained by using the animals. Animal pain and death animals are justified because of the benefits that humans derive. The ends (human benefits) justify the means (the use of animals) even if they suffer, because their use is considered to be necessary for human gains. Those who argue that moving animals around for human benefits and using dogs to teach medical students often employ the utilitarian argument, as do those who feel comfortable eating formerly "free-ranging chickens" but not chickens who've been brutally debeaked and imprisoned in inhumane battery cages.

Now what about those who advocate animal rights? Rightists also are concerned with animals' quality of life. However, they argue it's wrong to abuse or exploit animals, to cause animals any pain and suffering, and that animals shouldn't be eaten, held captive in zoos, or used in most (or any) educational or research settings. They believe animals have certain moral and legal rights including the right to life and the right not to be harmed. According to Gary Francione, a professor of law at Rutgers University, to say an animal has a "right" to have an interest protected means the animal is entitled to have that interest protected even if it would benefit us to do otherwise.

Rightists believe humans have an obligation to honor that claim for animals just as they do for nonconsenting humans who can't protect their own interests. So, if a dog has a right to be fed you have an obligation to make sure she's fed. If a dog has a right to be fed, you're obligated not to do anything to interfere with feeding her.

Rightists also stress that animals' lives are inherently valuable; their lives aren't valuable because of their utility to humans. Animals aren't "less valuable" than humans. Also, animals are neither property nor "things," but rather living organisms, subjects of a dignified life, who are worthy of our support, friendship, compassion and respect. Any amount of pain and death is unnecessary and unacceptable.

Now, what about many conservation biologists and environmentalists? Typically, they're welfarists (utilitarians) who are willing to trade-off individuals' lives for the perceived good of higher levels of organization such as ecosystems, populations or species. Witness recent debates about the reintroduction of lynx into Colorado. Some conservationists and environmentalists, in contrast to rightists, argued that the death (even agonizingly painful starvation) of some individuals was permissible for the perceived good of the species. Some even say that we should concentrate on the 14 animals who are known to be alive, rather than the 15 dead or 12 missing. People who claim it's alright to kill some prairie dogs because there are numerous other prairie dogs, are taking a utilitarian stance. The costs to individuals (and species) are less than the benefits to humans.

Labeling an individual a "welfarist" or "rightist" connotes important messages about their views on animal exploitation. One must be careful how these words are tossed around. Welfarists and rightists have radically different perceptions, perspectives and agendas, and solve problems differently. They preach very different codes of conduct. Welfarism and rights are extremely difficult to reconcile. Indeed, many experts think it's an impossible marriage. Nonetheless, its essential to understand their different perspectives in our efforts to protect animals who can't speak for themselves, whose voices fall on deaf ears.